Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Higher education budget to receive most significant portion of state cuts

Staff Writer

Published: Monday, October 11, 2010

Updated: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 00:10


As public furor grows over the developing budget crisis, many students are left with one burning question: Why higher education?

The answer is a complicated one with no clear solution.   

Because of a maze of budget restrictions, higher education — and thus the University — is being cut significantly more than other programs throughout the state.

The process for determining how the state distributes money starts with determining how much the state has to spend. That number is calculated by the Revenue Estimating Conference.

The conference includes Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senate President Joel Chaisson, Speaker of the House Jim Tucker and University economics professor James Richardson.

Those numbers are then compared to estimated state spending, as detailed by the state commissioner of administration, to determine the balance.

The state will have an estimated deficit of $1.6 billion next fiscal year. Because the state's total budget this year is $25.5 billion, that's a deficit of about 6 percent.

Louisiana law requires a balanced budget. Because Jindal and many influential state legislators have repeatedly said they will not raise taxes, the only way to find that balance is to cut from state programs.

At first glance, 6 percent may not seem like much, said Robert Keaton, special assistant to LSU System President John Lombardi. But the state can't cut that money across its entire budget because the budget consists of several different sources of funding — and most of those sources can't be easily cut.

The largest piece of the budget pie is $11.5 billion of federal funds, or 45 percent of the budget. Those funds are dedicated by Congress for specific programs — the state can't choose to redirect that money to other purposes and has little control over how those funds are spent.

The second piece of the budget pie is $4.6 billion of dedications, or 18 percent. These funds are raised directly from certain taxes, fees, mineral and gambling revenues and other sources of revenue.

The money raised from these revenue streams are, by law or constitutional amendment, dedicated to certain programs, so that money can't practically be cut.

The third piece of the budget pie is agency fees worth $1.7 billion, or 7 percent. These funds are raised by state agencies and are used specifically by those agencies to fund their budgets.

The only piece of the pie to which the Legislature can practically make cuts is the State General Fund worth $7.7 billion, or 30 percent of the budget.

This is the part of the budget funded by most taxes, and it includes a hodgepodge of services not funded by the three other revenue sources.

But even within the General Fund, there's only so much money the state can touch, Keaton said.

Two-thirds, or $5.1 billion, of the General Fund is marked "non-discretionary," meaning that, over time, the Legislature has attached protections to sections of the General Fund — usually through changes to the constitution.

That leaves only $2.6 billion of the General Fund marked "discretionary," or available to be cut.

When the governor and the Legislature create the current budget, the vast majority of the $1.6 billion possible cut must come from that $2.6 billion discretionary section of the             General Fund.

So instead of evenly distributed cuts across the board, discretionary General Fund programs have to absorb 61 percent of the total cut, causing disproportionately huge cuts to those programs. Other programs suffer significantly less or no cuts.

Higher education and health care make up the most significant percentage of discretionary spending. Higher education makes up 37 percent; health care makes up 29 percent.

Other discretionary spending programs are much smaller; they include the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, most of the State Civil Service and most of the Executive Branch, among others.

The end result of this maze of restrictions is that 90 percent of the state's budget is protected from cuts. So higher education and health care suffer massive funding decreases when times get rough, while most other programs suffer few or no cuts whatsoever.

For example, the state's Minimum Foundation Program, which doles out funding to primary and secondary programs statewide, has not suffered a cent of cuts during the most recent crisis.

The MFP costs more than $3 billion and makes up about 60 percent of the state's non-discretionary general fund budget. Because this sizeable program can't be cut at all, programs like higher education have to take the brunt of the budget cut burden.

There is a constitutional "trigger" that would let some protected programs get cut if the official forecast for the next year is less than the current year. That will not be the case for fiscal year 2011-12.

Keaton said relieving budget pressure on higher education doesn't necessarily require raising taxes or sending more funding — it might just mean more even distribution of budget cuts.

Many of the protections on certain programs are constitutional — removing those protections would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a vote of the people. But some protections require a less politically difficult solution.

Keaton said $1.4 billion of non-discretionary funds is not protected by the constitution but by more easily overturned rules. If that money were moved to the discretionary spending pool, the amount the state could cut would increase to $4 billion — that means those programs, including higher education, would deal with 39 percent of the cut instead of 61 percent.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

11 comments

Anonymous
Thu May 17 2012 12:16
Why not defund the Executive Branch, allowing $1 in annual salary each to the Governor and Lt. Governor?
Student
Fri Oct 15 2010 22:13
Kenneth, higher education is directly related to economic development. What business is going to want to come to a state with underfunded, under-prioritized institutions of higher education? Don't forget how much LSU injects into the local and state economy. Or how much of the workforce it produces. Or how much of the research it funds in the state. Or how many local businesses it supports. Success of business = success of the Flagship institution.
Anonymous
Wed Oct 13 2010 17:46
Perhaps a real governor, who actually wanted to lead the state and is not solely interested in looking good for segments of the national press, would actually push for spending reforms that made more of the budget discretionary. Whether that calls for constitutional amendments or other changes is what he was elected to do.
The tax cuts have hurt higher education in this state and the health care system while producing zero new growth. One would think that it's time to abandon those ideas.
Also it's time to get rid of the duplicative boards and combine universities in the same city, while strengthening the community college system.
There's a reason Louisiana is always in the bottom 5 of every quality of life assessment.
kenneth
Wed Oct 13 2010 07:43
Times are hard for everyone and as a buisness owner I had to make cuts that I didn't want to.Louisiana has too many universities that this state can not afford.They need to cut like i had to.When our students graduate they leave our state for better jobs. Louisiana has to buy buisness to bring here. As for John Kennedy he is the only that makes any sense.My buisness is not good thanks to the 0 in the White house. Wake up people if buisness are not making money how can higher ed continue to waste money on teaching the same thing at every college.
macarpen
Wed Oct 13 2010 01:48
Why blame Jindal (to Anonymous number 4)--Those constitutional amendments that protected different portions of the money were not made under Jindal's term. They were made under previous administrations, and will take new amendments to undo, however Jindal can not do that- our state legislators are the ones who can do that, but to do so would be to undo the "money in my pocket" mentality that got these special earmarks in the first place. So do not blame Jindal (whom I am angry with for his comments about too many people graduating- this is NOT a caste system he is dealing with and you can never have too many educated people!!) but he is seriously not to blame for this mess- he should have just raised taxes and got it over with...
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 22:08
The fault also lies with the citizens of Louisiana. We have demanded more and more services over the last several decades, and politicians have a vested interest in feeding our appetite.
Add to that the enormous amount of Washington money which should have stayed here in the first place, and here we are.
Diets are tough, but necessary to keep us healthy. So too is the need to wean ourselves off of dependence on government to meet our cradle to grave desires.
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 20:06
It seems so long ago, but I think I remember something about some politicians saying the revenues from gambling were going to be earmarked for education. It is a shame that did not happen. But of course I was listening to what the politicians said rather that watching what they did.
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 17:09
Why doesn't anyone mention how Jindal's tax cuts wrecked the budget? There is the promise to "not raise any new taxes" but what about the CUTS?????? He got us here in the first place. Now everyone is acting like he is trying to fix someone else's mess. It is his in the first place.
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 16:14
cut all of the board of supervisors and let the state's LT Governer's office supervise state colleges
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 15:17
Matt, just one thing, not sure if you wrote the copy for the photo, but perhaps you needed to have. To use "good explainer," instead of "good explanation" would perhaps been a better choice of words. Just shows, public education in Louisiana needs funding.
Anonymous
Tue Oct 12 2010 14:24
There is this one guy who claims that it is possible to balance the state budget without having to cut either higher ed or health care.

He claims to be something called the "State Treasurer." He doesn't seem to get a lot of attention for his efforts, due to his noted lack of paranoia and crazy talk. See for yourselves. www.treasury.state.la.us







log out